Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Weinstein

United States v. Weinstein, 778 F.2d 673 (11th Cir. 1985)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-12-16
Topic
international-arbitration

PER CURIAM: The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word “vacated” to “reversed” where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1535 and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1543. The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1537: Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein’s conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence. In its place the following is substituted: Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein’s conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Weinstein. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
12 opinions
UNITED STATES v. WEINSTEIN,778 F.2d 673(11th Cir. 1985)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PHILIP WEINSTEIN, "DR.
PHILIP ADAMELLI," WILHELMINA HARICH WEINSTEIN, SOLOMON RICHMAN, A/K/A "SOL"
A/K/A "SILVER FOX," ROBERT "BOBBY" FALVO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. STANLEY KOWITT,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 83-5260, 83-5570.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
December 16, 1985.
Rehearings Denied February 10, 1986 in No. 83-5260.
Philip Weinstein and Wilhelmina Harich Weinstein, pro se.

David R. Mackenzie, P.A., Lauderhill, Fla., Harvey M. Stone, New York City, for Falvo.

Drew Neville, Oklahoma City, Okl., B.J. Rothbaum, Jr., New York City, for Richman.

Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan Simon, P.A., Irwin J. Block, Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Gloria C. Phares, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.Page 674
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
[1] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
[2] (Opinion June 12, 1985, 11 Cir.,762 F.2d 1522)
Before HILL, FAY and SMITHfn*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[3] The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word "vacated" to "reversed" where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion,762 F.2d at 1535and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion,762 F.2d at 1543.

[4] The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion,762 F.2d at 1537:
Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence.


[5] In its place the following is substituted:
Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.


[6] In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.
  1. Honorable Edward S. Smith, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩